The Red Pill

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

1/184

The Red PillOr

An Information SystemsAnalysis of Mind, Knowledge,'the World' and Holistic Science

By John Ringland (www.anandavala.info)Inspired by conversations with V (the devil's advocate) [2007/03/13-20]

Edited due to contributions from Glistening Deepwater [2008/04/9-16] - many thanks :)

Regarding feedback:This document is an ongoing work in progress and is constantly evolving as better ways toexpress things are found. Feedback is an essential aspect of this process so please, if you feel like it, let me knowabout your experiences reading this and any ideas that occurred to you ([email protected]). It is

helpful if you let me know what parts you found unclear, unconvincing or incorrect. It is especially helpful if youcan explain why you found them so. Then I will take that into consideration. It is also helpful to let me know whatparts you strongly agree with, what parts were challenging, what parts you found irrelevant (unnecessarycomplication) and any ideas you have to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of this discussion. Let me know ifits just feedback or if you wish to discuss the issues because I do not have time to answer all emails, but I take themall into consideration. Oh and make the subject line clearly distinguishable from spam, otherwise it mightaccidentally get deleted. If you feel like providing feedback it will help put these ideas to the test and clarify them,thereby honouring truth. Thank you in advance.

See these excerpts from recent discussions about this document and the related ideas. Itprovides a concise of overview of some of the key issues.

Foreword:

by Glistening Deepwater.The subject matter covered in this body of work is at once subtle and dense, it makes fascinatingyet at times challenging reading. It discusses ways of potentially coming to an understanding ofthe nature of the mind, the way we relate to each other and the world, and the fundamentalunderlying nature of reality. Many comparative analogies, drawn from disparate traditions, arebrought together and clarified.

This work provides clear insight into newly developed tools that can be employed in order toholistically 'get a handle' on the seemingly divergent scientific and mystical paradigms. It canhelp one reach a point within ones self where these views come into focus in a unified andcoherent manner. It offers an opportunity for the seeker of clear and verifiable Truth to developthe capacity to clearly apprehend that truth in their own way, whatever their background

knowledge may be.Backed up by both rigorous and inspired scientific research and a wealth of references andresource material, it gives a coherent overview of and method of transcending our currentlimitations in understanding how it is we come to be what and where we are at this stage ofevolution, not just as a race but as a phenomena existent in the context of the universal whole. Itproposes a way forward toward a Holistic Science, one in which all genuine avenues of approachto the truth are treated equally and with their due respect.

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

2/184

Whilst this work is extensive in its endeavour to elucidate ways of thinking about 'reality', it isconcise and presents us with valuable tools and insights with which we can nourish our ownunderstanding. It makes no apologies for being direct and it cuts to the core of some of thedeepest fundamental issues facing the world today; the 'way' in which we come to ourunderstandings.

Approaching this work with an open mind and a willingness to leave any preconceived ideas andjudgements to one side, one can potentially gain a deeper insight into the true nature of realityand our relationship with it.

This is a sincere attempt to convey an important overview of the metaphysical situation thatcurrently faces us as human beings on this planet. I hope it helps to clarify many minds, as hasbeen my experience in working with it.

Namaste.

Preface (Advice on reading this document)

Due to the conceptual language and subject matter of this discussion it may not be accessible ormeaningful to many people, but to others it can potentially be of profound and far-reachingbenefit; it represents a majorparadigm shift. To motivate you and help you decide if you wish toread on some hints of what is coming will be given in the introduction, but beware of interpretingparticular words or phrases using old-paradigm associations. It can be difficult not to but beaware that this may create many preconceived ideas, and could potentially stir up irrationalresponses. This discussion describes a 'paradigm shift'; a change in the way we interpret thingsand thereby derive their meaning and significance. So there is much that needs to be clarifiedbefore any words or their interpretations can be taken on face value. Many things can be seen ina new light and the meanings and relations between things can change both subtly and radically.

To use a potentially useful early 21st century metaphor...

Thisparadigm shift is the red pillthat can potentially lift you out of the matrix ofworldlyillusions, take it and you will see "how deep the rabbit hole goes". Or simply turn away; takethe blue pill and the story ends... you believewhatever you want to believe. (The Matrix) [FurtherReading]. The decision is: Do you live on in ignorance (and potentially bliss) [but for how long?] ordo you lead... 'the examined life'... The question is asking us whether reality, truth, is worthpursuing. The blue pill will leave us as we are, in a life consisting of habit, of things we believewe know. We are comfortable, we do not need truth to live. The blue pill symbolises commutingto work every day, or brushing your teeth. The red pill is an unknown quantity. We are told thatit can help us to find the truth. We don't know what that truth is, or even that the pill will help usto find it. The red pill symbolises risk, doubt and questioning. (In the Matrix, which pill wouldyou take, the red or the blue?) [FR].

This discussion is not geared to take part in a combative discourse whereby it tries to useintricate proof to pin down resistantminds. Such methods are too crude andegoic to be effectivein navigating a profoundly transformativeparadigm shiftthat takes one way beyond the realm ofego driven illusions. You must employ effort to understand things rather than just search forthings to object to; the ideas are too subtle to be understood without sincere effort. The workdoes not attempt to use proof as a weapon, instead it seeks to inspire people to question thingsthemselves, to look at theirworld and our accumulated knowledge in a fresh way and see if itmakes sense. Although it doesn't use proof as a weapon it encourages people to try and disprove

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

3/184

what it says so long as they understand what it is they are trying to object to; because by doing sothey will put the ideas to the test from many different angles and also come to understand thingsin more detail, perhaps ultimately verifying it for themselves; however it does not not seek toimpose ideason minds that are not yet ready. It doesn't want people tobelieve but to find out forthemselves and to develop their own understanding. It simply seeks to share certain ideas withpeople who are ready. You judge for yourself your level of readiness based on your responses tothe ideas.

The document provides a large list of links to further reading on related subjects (usuallyindicated by [FR]) but they don't seek to prove anything or back anything up. They are purely thereto provide a starting point for people who are interested in exploring further; see the index forthis list. There is also a glossary of important terms where the meaning significantly differs fromthe popular meaning. The re-defined words are often hyperlinked to their redefinitions. These arenot given as strict definitions; that is too crude for this discussion, they are just given as hints tohelp you avoid obvious misunderstandings. If you take them as simplistic definitions this couldcrystallise your understanding and make it too rigid to be able to discern the subtler and deepermeanings. For some people a quick look through the glossary will inform them of the depth andthe nature of the paradigm shift and they may learn a great deal from this alone; see here for theglossary.This discussion is written for sceptical, rational, open-minded people who are willing to employintelligent, imaginative effort to follow the development ofideas and who are therefore capableof making aparadigm shift.This work is not a "walk in the park"; it is more of a serious trekdeep into remote territory. To totally understand these ideas requires overcoming commonsenserealism (also called naiverealism), whichis the root of all delusion. It is an intrinsic tendencythat causes us to unquestioningly believe in the idea of "out there". It is the seed illusion fromwhich all laterdelusions grow, thereby causing us to lose touch with and come into conflict withreality.

When we look at something webelievewe are seeing some 'thing' "out there" but what is

actually happening is that information flows through the senses, it issubconsciously filtered andinterpreted to form a cognitive impression that is presented to the conscious mind. The consciousmind succumbs to commonsense realism and believes that the cognitive impression is actually"the world". So "with our thoughts we make the world" (Buddha) and theego is the perceivedcentre of that world around which we structure all of ourillusions.

In the informationtheoretic andmystic paradigms, the ego, its countlessideasandbeliefs such asin "the world" have no existence beyond our cognitive impressions, but we unquestioninglybelieve in their absolute reality and thereby operate in a self created fantasy world, which is justthe shadow of reality that is cast upon our minds. There is certainly 'something' real, but we mustovercome our reflexive beliefs to truly perceive and understand that 'something'. To confuse oursubjective objects of perception for being objective objects "out there" is commonsense realism

and it is inherently anti-skeptical, non-scientificand irrational because it is an unfounded beliefthat we impose upon reality without any rational basis. We do so solely because it isevolutionarily conditioned into the mind to provide for basic animal survival. However we are nolonger just individual animals, we have become a part of a civilisation that spans the globe andour delusions spread and evolve throughout the culture and come to oppress us and the wholeplanet.

Ideas such as the world, objects, people, places and events are useful analogiesfor referring tocognitive impressions so long as one doesn't naively believe that they are "out there". Because

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

4/184

beyond the mind made world there is no such thing as "out there". The only reality is the flow ofpure awareness or the existentialinformationprocess, which quantum physicists are only justbeginning to comprehend and mystics, visionaries and saints have known in various ways. In itsreal nature it manifests asconsciousness and it can only be truly known 'within'. All that wethink is "out there" is actually 'within' but in truth there is no inner and outer ,there is onlyexistence, but the mindcreates an arbitrary division intoinnerandouteras an evolutionarystrategy. This arbitrary division underlies all dualistic concepts, especially mind and matterorselfand other.

What follows is ultimately just elementary psychology and information systems theory but theimplications are profound! Unless one overcomes commonsense realism one cannot begin tocomprehend the deeper information theoretic reality. Through a commonsense lens it would onlyseems absurd or totally unrealistic because one's entire concept of what is 'real' is based onconfusing the objects of sense perception with the idea of ontological, separately existingmaterialobjects. However commonsense realism is not trivial to overcome. The most commonmethod is to practice the process of letting the impressions arise whilst notbelieving in theirseparate reality; this is meditation. Or with the method of jnana yoga (pronounced gyan), one can

subtly enquire into the nature of the self until one 'sees' through one's imagined self and realisesthe divinity within all.

To totally understand this work one needs to see through commonsense realism, but toeffectively question it and overcome it one must be unfailingly skeptical and honest with oneself.Any hint of cynicism or blind acceptance is the imposition of arbitrary beliefs that warp the mindand make it virtually impossible to successfully enquire into the deep seated cognitive habit ofcommonsense realism. Many people confuse the concepts sceptic and cynic so they are clarifiedhere.

"Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse'skeptic' with 'cynic' and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling toaccept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional

approach to claims.It is the application of reason to any and all ideas- no sacred cowsallowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go intoan investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim mightbe true. When we say we are 'skeptical' we mean that we must see compelling evidence beforewe believe." (http://www.skeptic.com)

Hence 'skepticism' implies an open-minded approach whilst the manner in which the word isoften used implies a closed-minded approach. This is aconfusion of skepticism and cynicism.Many people dignify their cynicism by saying that they are skeptical but it would be moreaccurate to say that they are cynical.

"Cynicism:An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of theintegrity or professed motives of others."

(The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. HoughtonMifflin Company, 2004.Answers.com 11 Jun. 2006. http://www.answers.com/topic/cynicism)

A cynic approaches an enquiry such as this, irrationally convinced that it is wrong and that theyalready know the answer. They interpret everything in the context of that agenda,subconsciouslydesiring to attack and destroy the idea. If they argue their position coherently it can be useful tohave a cynic around for "destructive testing" ofideas, but generally they confusethe issue intheirmind and are resistant to any clarification, seeking only to prevent their unquestioned

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

5/184

beliefs from being questioned. Hence a cynic is fundamentally unable to undergo or comprehendaparadigm shift.

But if you approach this discussion sceptically there is a great deal that can be learnt. It containssomemind-blowing ideas (literally). As they flow through my mindand out my fingers they areblowing my oldparadigminto tiny pieces - dissolving everything and re-casting it into a new

paradigmor vision of reality. So beware if you are attached to your familiarworld-view- youwill find this discussion threatening. Read this only if you are willing to question fundamentalbeliefs and assumptions, and you seek a deep rational knowledge of yourself, of theworld, ofthe nature of thephenomena and events in theworld and how to holistically, harmonious andeffectively participate in reality.

"If we truely desire to understand the world, then we are forced to fight constantly for clearvision. We must fight constantly against our expectation bias, against our human tendency to seeonly what we want to see. Researchers who assume it's easy to avoid self-delusions and wishfulthinking... are probably the victims of self-delusions and wishful thinking. It takes quite a bit ofeffort to avoid these pitfalls. The effort starts with a painfully honestself-examination, whereinwe discover just how large our personal capacity for self-delusioncan be."

(http://amasci.com/weird/wskept.html)[FR]

This discussion touches upon extremely controversial and off limits subjects - subjects aboutwhich there is extreme misrepresentation and misunderstanding. Subjects about which manypeople have hard and fastbeliefs andprejudicesthat they neverdare look into and question. Itcan be surprisingly easy for onesmindto just slide off the subject and avoid ever contemplatingit directly. Some people experience strong aversions toward such subjects and yet show neitherunderstanding nor any coherent argument against them. Theseideaschallenge certain corebeliefs that many people have not seriously questioned so they are unable to defend them byrational means so their tendency is to retreat into denial. Be wary of these impulses in yourselfand be mindful of your responses. Peer review is a vital aspect of any scientificenquiry, for ideasto be put to the test and found to be reliable or unreliable, but for this to occur people must

approach the ideas with a sceptical attitude.The worksays many profound things and is just one voice amongst many, if these things weretrue the ramifications would have far reaching benefits for everyone and could help uscomprehend and avert major systemic crises. Given the vast potential benefit it seems that theseideas should be made available to be independently and rationally assessed to either refute themor to help subject them to closer examination. What is described is detailed extraordinaryevidence for extraordinary claims however one must clear away many illusions, such ascommonsense realism and unquestioned beliefs that cause the mind to slide off the topic beforeone can comprehend things from a clearer perspective. Then the claims can be properly tested.As you read through the discussion you will hopefully be able to identify the assumptions andillusions, overcome thepreconceivedideasand be able to contemplate the topic from a newperspective that will make it much clearer.

There are many profoundly interesting and shocking ideas ahead however it is necessary toclarify many things before certainideascan be introduced. Even then many will have greatdifficulty because this is a profoundparadigm shift and oldcognitive habits can be difficult toeven recognise let alone overcome. For some it is relatively effortless but for others there aremany subtle stages of deepening claritybefore real understanding arises.

The subject itself is the essence of simplicity but because of the complexity of ourideas the workmust provide a very complex analysis to make it connect with ourworld of ideas. Also due to

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

6/184

countless trivial misunderstandings and objections raised over the years many stumbling pointshave been clarified and made explicit, but this has caused the discourse to become rathercomplex and detailed. Perhaps in the future simpler versions can be produced but until then,apologies for the mass of details but this has been necessary.

The discussion may start off a bit too technical for some and it may get a bit too metaphysical or

abstract for others. It is primarily meant for people who are enthralled by the world of ideas(intellectuals) and who are open to exploring itsfoundationsand seeing 'beneath' theworld ofideas. It is particularly aimed at open minded, rational, and skeptical, scientists, philosophers,intellectuals and theologians as well as open minded, rational, skeptical and enquiring people ofall kinds. It coversvast territory so much of it may be unfamiliar or may seem familiar on thesurface but be totally different to what you would expect. This discussion describes aparadigmshift, so if you find parts that sound like utter gibberish or nonsense then this is because yourcurrentparadigmis incompatible or evenhostile toward theparadigm discussed here. There is noquestion of being right or wrong, it is just a matter of understanding each other.

"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as fraud."(Carl Jung[FR])

If understanding becomes difficult then just skim those parts you cant understand and comeback to them later. The important thing is to absorb those parts that you can understand and to becareful of judging things based on misunderstandings due to different associations with wordsand concepts. In aparadigm shiftmany meanings subtly and radically change and one mustassess concepts based, not onpreconceived ideas andbeliefs but on their relations with otherconcepts in the current discourse; it is a matter of learning a new conceptual language. Bylooking at the glossary you can get an idea of the depth of theparadigm shift. You need to stepacross to the other side to properly see the view from there; it may surprise you. Only then andnot before are you in a position to assess theparadigm rationally, sceptically and scientifically. Ifyou dont cross the river you cant know about what is on the other side.

"The reception of a newparadigmoften necessitates a redefinition of the correspondingscience.

Some old problems may be relegated to anotherscienceor declared entirely "unscientific".Others that were previously non-existent or trivial may, with a newparadigm, become the veryarchetypes of significant scientific achievement."(Thomas Kuhn)

It is the nature of aparadigm shift that it can shake things up and stir things into motion in yourmind; it can even slaughter your sacred cows and cherishedillusions. This can be disturbing attimes, but this is cognitive growing pains; if you revere truth and reality then these pains are apart of the process. As you proceed things will quickly settle and reform into a deeper and moreholistic understanding. Each time you experience something it is largely a function of yourcurrentparadigm, which is the lens that you look through. So during aparadigm shiftit isimportant to use a cyclic approach. For example, after having read this document yourunderstanding of thisparadigm will be much deeper and clearer than it was originally. Then

spend some time looking through this new cognitive lens at your world and reassess things anew.Then return to this document (or other transcendent writings) and you will see it in a new lightand understand it on a much deeper level.

For those who are not technically minded you can skim or skip the technical discussions and readthe rest; it is all very simple and intuitive really - it's more about awareness than about intellect.As the discussion progresses its format becomes less technical and once people are able tounderstand the analogical language that is employed it covers all kinds of topics, shedding newlight on them. There are parts of this discussion that develop a rational argument that must be

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

7/184

followed through to be understood but most of the discourse is just many different ways ofsaying the same thing. Towards the end of the discussion there are countless paragraphs that cansum up the entire message contained herein but only if one has successfully shifted one'sparadigm enough to be able to understand them. For those already open to the paradigmpresented here they could just skip to the latter sections and see the entire message presented inmany different ways, each highlighting a particular subtlety but otherwise saying essentially thesame thing. But for those unfamiliar with the paradigm it may require many years of subtleenquiry, growing awareness, personal growth and changing life circumstances before thingsbecome comprehensible.

Through questioning and deconstructing fundamental assumptions and confusions then exploringthe ramifications of this the work seeks to motivate people to clarify and overcome thesedistortions in themselves and the wider culture so that we can all better comprehend andparticipate in reality. It does not propose any new ideology, grand theory orbeliefsystem, just a'device' that can assist in clarifying understanding. After that,awareness and reality do the rest.

Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart ... Who looks outside, dreams.Who looksinside, awakens. (Carl Jung[FR])

IntroductionHere we introduce one of the major threads that weaves through this discussion, first lets clarifythe concept of skepticism a little more. Skepticism has a specifically philosophical meaning:

"skepticism[Gr.,= to reflect], philosophic position holding that the possibility of knowledge islimited either because of the limitations of the mind or because of the inaccessibility of its object.It is more loosely used to denote any questioning attitude. Extreme skepticism holds that noknowledge is possible, but this is logically untenable since the statement contradicts itself. Thefirst important skeptical view was held byDemocritus, who saw senseperceptionas no certainguide to objective reality. TheSophists were the earliest group of skeptics.Protagorastaught therelativity of knowledge, andGorgiasheld that either nothing could be known, or if anything

were known, it could not be communicated.Pyrrho, regarded as the father of skepticism, laterheld a similarly extreme position, seeing reality as inaccessible.Arcesilaus taught that certitudeis impossible and only probable knowledge is attainable. In the Renaissance, skepticism is seenin the writings of Michel de Montaigne, Pierre Charron, and BlaisePascal. For RenDescartesskepticism was a methodology that allowed him to arrive at certain incontrovertible truths. Atthe end of the 17th cent., PierreBayleskeptically challenged philosophical and theologicaltheories. DavidHume, a leading modern skeptic, challenged established assumptions about theself, substance, and causality. The skeptical aspect of Immanuel Kant's philosophy is exemplifiedby hisagnosticism; his antinomies of reason demonstrate that certain problems are insoluble byreason. To some degree skepticism manifests itself in thescientificmethod, which demandsthat all things assumed as facts be questioned. But the positivism [REF]of many scientists,whether latent or open, is incompatible with skepticism, for it accepts without question theassumption that material effect is impossible without material cause."(The ColumbiaElectronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press., 2003.Answers.com 11 Jun. 2006. http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism)

This positivism is a corebeliefthat goes unquestioned throughout empiricalscience and it is thephilosophical foundation of empiricism [FR] and empirical science[FR]. It is this sacred cow ofscience that is questioned here. The following argument and this entire discussion rest upon theidea that reality has a processual [FR],information/system theoretic [FR] nature; that there are no

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

8/184

fundamental bits of matter that a priori (miraculously) exist in space and time and interact toconstruct aphysical universe. This outmoded ideais already proven false but it is so deeplyingrainedthat it lingers on in thephilosophical foundations of ourthinking. Whether one thinksofinformation, computation, pure awarenessor abstract non-physical physicality such asquantum wavefunctions or strings or a unified quantum vacuum, these are allinformationprocesses.

"Because it is now ascientificallyestablished fact that less than 4% of the universeis composedofmatteras commonly understood modern philosophical materialists attempt to extend thedefinition ofmatterto include other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, andthe curvature of space. However this opens them to further criticism from philosophers such asMary Midgley who suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)

Many of the concepts in modern physics are not physical in the traditional sense of the word;whilst a wavefunction gives rise to the appearance ofphysical attributes such as mass or velocitythe wavefunction itself has no mass or velocity or any observable attributes; it has no empiricalappearance because it is made of probability. A super-string gives rise tophysicalphenomena

but it itself is not physical because it is an abstractinformation medium that representsinformation using vibrational states. A unified quantum vacuum gives rise tophysicalphenomena but it itself is not physical because, by definition, the vacuum itself is devoid of allphysical substance; it is the invisible stuff out of which every thing comes and within whichall events occur, and that is exactly how a computational process would appear from within avirtual reality [FR]. In this manner physicists have already left 'materialism' and the 'physical'universe behind but have yet to explicitly recognise this fact.

"Let us now return to our ultimateparticlesand to small organizations ofparticlesas atoms orsmall molecules. The old idea about them was that theirindividualitywas based on the identityofmatterin them...The new idea is that what is permanent in these ultimate particles or smallaggregates is theirshape and organization. The habit of everyday language deceives us and

seems to require, whenever we hear the word shape or form of something, that it must be amaterialsubstratum that is required to take on a shape. Scientifically this habit goes back toAristotle, his causa materialis and causa formalis. But when you come to the ultimateparticlesconstitutingmatter, there seems to be no point in thinking of them again as consisting of somematerial. They are as it were,pure shape, nothing but shape; what turns up again and again insuccessive observations is this shape, not an individualspeckofmaterial..." (ErwinSchroedinger[REF])

So if it is the case that thephysical universearises from underlying non-physical processes, thenthat deeper reality that underlies the existence of all things and underlies theprocess ofperception and experience is not accessible to empirical science by its very definition.Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts andknowledge (Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[FR]) whilst theexistential processunderlies the existence of all things and underlies theprocess of perceptionand experience.

Naive realism [FR] claims that the objects ofperception are ontologically real external objectsthatthe mindcan directly grasp. Whereas phenomenalism claims that theobjects ofperception arejust that, they are perceptual constructs that form in theminddue to the incidence of sensoryinformation and the interpretation of this by the mind. "Edmund Husserl (1970), saw thephenomenologist in Hume when he showed that some perceptions are interrelated or associated

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

9/184

to form other perceptions which are then projected onto a worldputativelyoutsidethe mind."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume)

"Naiverealism[FR]is a common sense theory ofperception. Most people, until they startreflecting philosophically, are naiverealists. This theory is also known as "direct realism" or"common sense realism".Naiverealism claims that theworldis pretty much as common sense

would have it. Allobjectsare composed ofmatter, they occupyspace, and have properties suchas size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour. [It is assumed that] These properties are usuallyperceived correctly. So, when we look at and touch things we see and feel those things directly,and so perceive them as they really are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nave_realism)

"Noumena(the ontological[FR]reality that underlies our sensory and mental impressions of anexternal world) do not cause phenomena[FR], but rather phenomena are simply the way by whichourmindsperceive thenoumena...we participate in the reality of an otherwise unachievableworldoutside the mind... We cannot prove that our mental picture of an outsideworldcorresponds with a reality by reasoning... [however] we can participate in the underlying realitythat lies beyond mere phenomena." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer)

Empiricism does not question the nature ofperceptionbut takes it for granted and it uses the

objects of perception (which are mistaken to be objectively real objects) to construct the idea of aphysical objective world that is made ofobjects, which are actually objects of perception - in thismanner it is inherently naive realist. From this flawed conceptual foundation it builds all of itslater hypotheses. It proposes that the hypotheticalphysical universeunderlies theprocess ofperception, hence one of the major paradoxes in empiricism is how can the process ofperception, awareness and consciousnessarise from the interactions of inertphysicalobjects(which are really just objects of perception)? This is a fundamental paradox that arises becauseof assumptions about the nature of perception and the confusion between objects of perceptionand the idea of ontologically realphysicalobjects.

What is proposed is a rationalist approach: Rationalists claim that there are significant ways inwhich our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. (Rationalism

vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[FR]) In this way we can overcome thelingering attachments to ideas derived from arbitrary human sense experience. Rationalism orscientific realism is anti-empiricist. It essentially claims that the fundamental properties of thingsare more real than their appearances in themind. So frequency is more real than colour or soundand wavefunctions are more real than particles or waves. So the informatic/systemic entities aremore real than their appearances in ourminds. That which we experience in ourminds is just acognitive reflection of the deeper reality. This should be quite obvious but because it challengescertain corebeliefspeoples mindshave great difficulty in thinking clearly about this.

Here is an analogy to explain what is meant when stating that the existential process itself existsprior toperception and experience. Consider avirtual realityworld generated by acomputationalprocess (the simulator). The computational process underlies the existence of allobjects within

the virtualuniverse and it implements all interactions between these objects. Whenever a virtualsystem perceives another system it is the computational process that underlies the flow ofinformation that implements both that which is perceived and theprocess of perception. In thisrespect the VRuniverse is composed ofinformation systemsof some kind that appear asphysicalobjects (with attributes) in spacetime. These systems perceive things from an empiricalperspective within the virtualworld. But underlying these appearances ofobjects in space, theactual reality is computational in nature. So you may play a computer game and know the gamespace very well and understand the many objects and phenomena that appear within the game,

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

10/184

but you cannot comprehend the underlying computational process in terms of theseobjects andphenomena because they only arise as appearances within the virtualworldand they have nomeaning within the context of thecomputational space and the complex computational processesthat create and implement every aspect of the gameworld. This is just an elaborateanalogy toexplain what is meant by saying that existence underlies theprocess of perceptiontherefore aperceptually based theory cannot comprehend questions of existence but only appearances withinthe mind. The objects and theperceiverdont miraculously arise from separate roots; they areintrinsic parts of a computational process.

Rather than consider a world of separate objects we must eventually return to considering auniverse that is One and Whole, that is unified and coherent rather than fragmented and random.

"Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, todivide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole ofrealityat once, we would be swamped.However when this mode of thought is applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and thewhole worldin which he lives, (i.e. in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultantdivisions as merely useful or convenient and begins tosee and experiencehimself andthis worldas actually constituted ofseparately existingfragments. What is needed is a relativistic theory,

to give up altogether the notion that the worldis constituted of basicobjectsor building blocks.Rather one has to view the worldin terms ofuniversal flux of events and processes." (DavidBohm[REF])

Because of the fundamental limitations of empiricism [FR] most of empirical science [FR], westernphilosophy, common sense and general knowledge is fundamentally limited. Thats not to saythat the vast accumulation of empirical data and hypotheses are not useful. Within the context inwhich it arose much of our knowledge is highly accurate and some of it is deep and subtle. Butwhat it means is that outside of the empirical context it has no meaning because the entireempirical context is a perceptual construct by its very definition. Therefore knowledge derivedfrom a perceptual, empirical perspective can be useful in the empirical context but it has nomeaning outside of that. Hence empirical science can never address issues of ontology (what is)[FR]

but only phenomenology (that which appears to be)[FR]

. Ontology is the scienceor study ofbeing: specifically, a branch ofmetaphysicsrelating to the nature and relations of being; aparticular system according to which problems of the nature of being are investigated(Definitions of Ontology by Leading Philosophers, [FR]) whilst Phenomenology is the study ofstructures ofconsciousnessas experienced from the first-person point of view. (Phenomenology(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[FR]).

Because existence underliesperception, and empirical science depends solely upon perceptualphenomena, traditional empirical science is fundamentally unable to address issues of existencebut only appearance, however the cutting edge ofscience is stretching the concept of empiricismby going beyond concepts that derive from our sense experiences, going beyond solidity,localisation and so on. In this way science is overcoming empiricism and is approaching a morerationalist and realist perspective (holistic realism rather than common-sense ornaive realism)[FR].

Traditional empirical science addresses the epistemological question [what can be known andwhat is unknowable] by drawing a sharp distinction between truth and empirical adequacy.[Empirical science claims] that a good theory need only provide an empirically adequatedescription of observable phenomena. Any unobservables, such as electrons and quarks, aresimply empirical tools for describing the observableworld... [hence] our epistemic knowledge islimited to the observables.

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

11/184

However Scientificrealism claims that we can know aboutobjectsbeyond what we observewith our bare senses, and this knowledge is what allows us to predict phenomena The realistinterpretation [of quantum mechanics] shows that we can make knowledge claims aboutobjects,such as electrons, that are unobservable with our bare senses. This challenges the empiricistclaim that quantum objectsare simply empirical tools to describe observables. Thus, contrary towhat we might at first think, the wave-particle duality of quantum objectsprovides support forthe realists. We now know that quantum objectsbehave differently from everydayobjects, andwe can make an experimentally supported epistemological claim about the quantum world, avery realist claim. (A Critique of the Empiricist Interpretation of Modern Physics (PDF)[FR])

"we have to give up the idea of[naive] realism to a far greater extent than most physicistsbelievetoday." (Anton Zeilinger)...By realism, he means the idea thatobjectshave specificfeatures and properties that a ball is red, that a book contains the works of Shakespeare, orthat an electron has a particular spin. For everydayobjects, such [naive] realism isn't aproblem. But forobjectsgoverned by the laws of quantum mechanics, like photons andelectrons, it may make no sense to think of them as having well defined characteristics. Instead,what we see may depend on how we look. (Physicists bid farewell to reality? Quantummechanics just got even stranger.[FR])

Any attempt by traditional empiricist theories to make ontological claims is like a computergame player saying that the computational process actually consists ofobjects in space and time,whereas the computational process is really an information process wherein there are noempirical phenomena at all. Therefore when empirical science projects its empiricistideasbeyond the empirical context (which is a construct of perceptions and appearances) then it isattempting to operate in a context in which it has no meaning and is therefore illogical. This isthe situation with Scientism.

"Sociologists coined the term "scientism" back in the 1940s, when they realized that manyscientists unthinkingly accepted manyscientifictheories as simple, unquestioned Truths, justlike believersin any "ism," and thus we often acted like anyprejudiced"believer," especially

outside our immediate areas of expertise." (The Archives of Scientists Transcendent Experiences(TASTE)[FR])

To a large extent physics has moved in the right direction by letting go of its billiard balls andplum pudding models of matter and it has gone into relativistic spacetime, quantumwavefunctions and fields, strings, processes and information. By hanging onto empirical ideasthat are inherently derived from sensory experience within thevirtual reality we are trappedwithin an empirical understanding of things. But by letting go and going deeper into the abstractinformation processes we can comprehend the underlying process of existence and therebycomprehend our experiences on a much deeper level. Rather than just take our experiences forgranted and enshrine them as corebeliefs in an empiricist approach, we can rationally questionthosebeliefs and subtly penetrate to a much deeper understanding.

That is what is proposed here. I describe a general information systemstheory[IST]

based uponmatrix algebra and discrete mathematics that is used to explore the underlying existential processand thereby comprehend the empirical (experiential) worldfrom a deeper perspective [FR]. Thisdocument is not a technical discussion; it is more descriptive. For details refer to the website(www.anandavala.info) or follow these links [overview], [metaphysical approach], [VR metaphysics], [IST], [SMN], [sys theory], [unification],where there are mathematical and software models illustrating how one can use matrix algebraand discrete mathematics to create existential processes that generate virtual empirical worldswhere systems interact and experience being in a world of systems in interaction. This

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

12/184

mathematical methodology is called system matrix notation [SMN]. There are also metaphysicalandgeneral essays and long lists of assorted comments and even poetry and images; all trying tomake the ideasaccessible to people.

In the SMN approach all the principles of system theory naturally arise within the virtualrealities. The models can implement quantum, pseudo classical and relativistic phenomena. The

quantum and relativistic effects arise due to the constraints of discreteness. There is an inherentarrow of time, which is of a processual nature [FR] so there is no ontological dimension of time,there is only an ongoing process-of-the-real that exists in the present moment. This means thatany equation or theory relying upon a time variable t is an empirical description of observedappearances and events from within the VR simulation when it is running. This is also the casefor any spatial coordinate (x,y or z), because SMN has only process time andstate space; it isfrom these that empirical time and empirical space arise within the simulation. Whilst all thevirtual systems have an inherent present moment existence, to empirical science [FR] this is aninexplicable anomaly; this is because empiricism relies on the flow of countless present momentsof existence as its conceptual ground. It takes experience as an a priori (miraculous) startingpoint and thus can only comprehend the virtualexperience of existence and not the actualmechanism of existence. Furthermore, all virtualsystems have input, internal state and output,these are primitive precursors toperception, experienceand response. Complex systems can havevery complex structures, behaviours and appearances as well as highly complex cognitiveprocesses with countless internal feedback loops and internal processes.

This indicates that ourconsciousness may be a highly complex manifestation of a universalprinciple. What we call consciousness is a high level experience of the existential process itselfas it looks through our perspective and experiences the virtualworld.So it could be said thatall things are made ofconsciousness and the objects are appearances; they are the content ofconsciousness. This resolves the mind/matterparadox that arises within empirical science.Consciousness is an inexplicable anomaly in empirical science for the same reasons thatempirical science cannot comprehend present moment existence. Because empiricism takes theprocess of experience as an unquestioned given and it builds all of itsideasupon that

assumption, it is therefore unable to use its laterideasto coherently comprehendconsciousness.One cannot comprehend the mechanism ofconsciousness by using concepts solely derived fromthe contents ofconsciousness.

There are many other profound and striking parallels between everyday experience, scientificknowledge and theperennial philosophy[FR], which I discuss later once certain fundamentalconfusions are cleared up. The current limitations of SMN [FR]are here clarified; it is currentlystrictly confined to working with ontological processes and the general properties of the virtualreality and not on the contingent processes that give rise to any particularvirtualuniverse. Toexplain, SMN provides a new context of enquiry, a new mathematical / computational approachwith new system simulation techniques. It provides a general model of the structure anddynamics of the existential process; it models the metaphorical cosmic simulator. SMN gives

us a general model of the simulator and its fundamental constraints but any kind of system modelor VRuniversecan be run on this simulator. There is still a great deal to be learnt about how tocreate a seed model that evolves into a universe very much like our own. The nature of thesimulator imposes fundamental constraints on the nature of the VRuniverse; it must be finite,discrete, quantised, relativistic, systemic and so on, but within these constraints any type ofsystem model or VRuniverse can be created and simulated. So the question remains, whichparticular types of models evolve intouniverses much like our own?

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

13/184

Using SMN as the mathematical foundation this work contemplates the information systemtheoretic principles that naturally arise in thevirtualworlds. It seeks an understanding of howthey connect with our own personal experience of existence and with our accumulatedknowledge. From this arises, what in the context of this work is called information systemtheory (IST) [FR], which is a general theory of systems [FR] and their interactions. It is notpresented as a formal theory but rather as a way of thinking that subtly uses the flow of themathematics [FR] to comprehend the flow ofinformation that is the existential process thatunderlies our empirical experiences. In this way one is not fixated wholly on the objectsofperception, assuming that they are the reality, because within ones minds eye one also sees theconnectivity and the flow and one understands the complex empirical appearances and theirbehaviours on a much deeper level. It subtly informs ones understanding of the holisticsituation. It is analogous to playing a computer game when you are the one that programmed thegame; you have a far deeper understanding of the information flows underlying the objects,places and events in the game, whereas an unfamiliar player could only respond to senseimpressions and would not perceive the underlying dynamics.

Whilst empirical scientific enquiry has done much to clear up many of our surface confusions,the empirical scientific method is itself distorted by some of our deepest, most profound and far-reaching assumptions andbeliefs. It is most definitely NOT a truly skeptical approach. It must letgo of its sacredbeliefs before it can be truly skeptical. Thesebeliefsare buried deep within thephilosophical foundations of empiricism, thereby distorting the whole of empirical science. It is amatter of great importance that we recognise these distortions, comprehend their effect on us andwork to correct them. We need to understand the mind first before reliably contemplating thecontents of the mindotherwise we are open to illusion, delusion (persistent illusion), fanaticism,oppression and holistically destructive behaviour.

The mindis the foundation of our knowledge; it responds to the stimuli of existence andgenerates cognitive experiences and ideas. It is the fundamental link between reality and ourknowledge of reality. It is the 'instrument' by which we experience and know anything at all andall good seekers of knowledge should understand and master their most fundamental instrument.

In order to see clearly through thelens of themindone must understand the nature ofmind andits complex non-linear property whereby the view influences the lens, which influences the view,which influences the lens and so on. In this way we come to look through our ownideas.Because of this one must master one's own mind before one can derive reliable knowledgethrough it. Otherwise everything is coloured and distorted by preconceived subconscious ideasand attitudes that reinforce each other and evolve into complex, subtle and compelling illusions.If an illusion is enduring and pervasive it is difficult to identify as an illusion, hence within whatwe normal consider to be just the way things are there dwell many unquestioned illusions.

We will see in this discussion that the concepts of reality and illusion are not at all clear-cut.That which many call real is actually illusionin the strictest sense, and will generally bedescribed as such, but it is illusion in the same way as a virtualreality is an illusion; for

characters that dwell in thatvirtual reality it seems real because it is all illusionand all as realas they are. Hence theillusionsdiscussed can be thought of as processes that manifest avirtualreality [FR]. This has also been described as relative reality, as opposed to absolute reality. But ingeneral this work will simply refer to absolute reality as reality or objective reality and to relativereality as illusion orvirtual reality or pseudo objective reality (that which webelieveto be theobjective reality but it is actually a construct of shared subjective experiences).

A major feature of this discussion is an analysis of the information flow from reality, throughperception, interpretation, experience, ideas, expression, communication, cultural consensus and

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

14/184

finally arriving at collective knowledge; and then the many feedback loops through which ourawarenessand understanding is conditioned. Using this understanding itdeconstructs manycommon illusions and assumptions. This creates profound and far-reaching cracks in one'sbeliefsystem. It shows how loosely our collective knowledge is related to reality and how themindhasan incredible ability to construct experiential worlds based upon our preconceived subconsciousideas. It is a literal fact that, as Buddha said, "with ourthoughts we make the world" [FR]. Not theobjective reality of course, but our own personal experiential world. For most people, that is theonly world they have ever known.

For example, consider some object in front of you; you cannot ever see or experience the object"as it is". All you ever experience is yoursubconscious interpretation of the signals that stimulateyour senses; these produce a response in yourmind and that is what you actually experience. Asimple example is a person who is hypnotised then handed an onion and given the subconscioussuggestion that it is an apple - they will eat it gladly and experience it as an apple. You can neverexperience or know anything directly. Whilst our own responses do depend on the incidentsignals coming from reality, the actual form that they take in theconscious mind, which is whatwe experience, depends primarily on our particular way of interpreting and representing thesignals to ourselves. So people with different subconscious cognitive filters actually experiencedifferent worlds.That's just one of the many confusions that are clarified in this discussion. They are systemicperceptual illusions, i.e. illusions that arise because we are systems within a universe of systemsand we only interact via the communication ofinformation. We are not material objectsin spacethat miraculously exist with innate solidity and behaviour, and we don't have a perfect "God'seye view" of reality or even an objective view, as people tend to assume. We experience manyperceptualillusions that we accept as reality; these lead to experiences such as objects in space,around which we have woven ideas and allege the existence of aworld "out there". But all weever know is our ownpersonal subjective experiencethat is totally constructed by our ownminds.

Many people have primarily been looking through themindnaively assuming it to be a perfectobjective window on reality and that we all experience the same objective world. Many peopleintellectually know better but still carry this subconsciousassumption, which permeates theirentire experience and knowledge of the world. Many people look through the mind withoutunderstanding the nature of the mind and thereby confuse the contents ofmind with objectivereality. This is a profound and far reaching error that opens us up to unending illusion,confusion,delusion (persistent illusion), agitation and suffering. We become prone to take ourillusions asreality, to base all our knowledge and actions upon them and to thereby experience and operatewithin what is essentially a fantasyworld that is loosely based upon an underlying reality.

These illusionsare all pervasive in our experience; they initially arise from fundamentalprinciples ofinformation, systems andperception, but through biology and culture they havebecome reinforced and woven into what is generally considered to be the bedrock ofincontrovertible self-evident facts of experience, that we never question because they are neverrecognised as a position or a theory that could be questioned, they are just assumed to be the waythings actually are. On top of this we have built civilisation, a vast and intricate structure ofknowledge,belief, tradition, roles, dependencies and the status quo of the world. From thisvantage point we uncritically contemplate the world that presents itself to the conscious mind,assuming that we have a clear, undistorted and objective perspective on reality.

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

15/184

Because of this fundamental error most of empirical science, western philosophy, common senseand general knowledge rests upon a false foundation and does not represent reliable knowledgeabout reality. It is only reliable knowledge about the appearance, structure and behaviour of ourparticular systemic, biological, historical and contemporary cognitive illusions. Theseillusionsare ultimately based upon an underlying reality but the lens is often so distorted that the illusionexhibits only superficial resemblance and relevance to reality, thus leaving most of realityincomprehensible and most of our actions inappropriate in the wider context. We may actrationally within a narrow context but this can be highly destructive and irrational within thewider context. The vast majority ofinformation is filtered out by thesubconscious and theremainder is heavily interpreted and distorted by deep-seated assumptions andmisunderstandings.

In many respects science is becoming skeptical on its cutting edge with quantum physics [FR],string theory [FR], process physics [FR], process philosophy [FR], information physics [FR], systemtheory [FR], computational metaphysics[FR], cybernetics [FR], and so on. But on the whole there stillremains an irrational and unquestioned attachment to an arbitrary butnaively compellingbeliefthat dwells within concepts such as empiricism [FR], positivism [FR], empirical science [FR],materialism, commonsense/naive realism [FR] and Scientism. Note the capital S for Scientism,this is because it is a religion and these are usually capitalised. Scientism is a product of thegradual cultural distortion ofscience, just as popular religion is a product of the gradual culturaldistortion ofmysticism; it is when direct and subtle knowledge is taken out of context and itdevolves into confusion and results in unfoundedbeliefor dis-belief, which are both justassumptions.

""materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself."(Schopenhauer)... an observing subject can only know materialobjectsthrough themediation ofthe brain and its particular organization. The way that the brain knows determines the way thatmaterial objects are experienced." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)

By uncritically accepting the contents ofmind as objective reality we are prone to illusion. These

illusions distort the lens of ourmind thus distorting our experiences and if these too areuncritically accepted as objective reality the illusion is further reinforced. Theseillusions bringus into conflict with ourselves, with each other and with the holistic context, our totalenvironment. To see clearly, understand coherently and participate effectively we need tounderstand the mind and make direct clear contact with reality. Just as illusions reinforce, so toodoes sincere and open-minded questioning of things lead to greater and greater clarity andawareness. Then we are in a position to clarify the many fundamental errors in ourconscious andsubconscious understanding; to straighten the lens; to see through it and get a fresh perspective.From this perspective we can then follow through the ramifications of those changes, to workfrom the re-aligned foundation all the way up, through the structure of our knowledge,renovating it and re-aligning it with reality. This is not as difficult as it sounds if one uses one'swholemind effectively.

Only then can we develop reliable personal and collective knowledge about reality. No collectiveknowledge can be perfect, but it can at least be comprehensive enough and accurate enough toovercome much of the dire confusion, agitation, imbalance, conflict, suffering and destructionthat threatens the very survival of life on this planet. Ifscience is to become skeptical and notdevolve into Scientism it must openly, rationally and sincerely re-examine its roots and realisethat the mindis its foundation and not anaivebeliefin the objective reality of the contentsof themind.

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

16/184

"The old foundations ofscientificthoughtare becoming unintelligible. Time, space, matter,material, ether, electricity, mechanism, organism, configuration, structure, pattern, function, allrequire reinterpretation. What is the sense of talking about a mechanical explanation when youdo not know what you mean by mechanics? The truth is thatsciencestarted its modern career bytaking over ideas derived from the weakest side of the philosophies of Aristotle's successors. Insome respects it was a happy choice. It enabled the knowledge of the seventeenth century to beformulated so far as physics and chemistry were concerned, with a completeness which lasted tothe present time. But the progress of biology and psychology has probably been checked by theuncritical assumption of half-truths. Ifscienceis not to degenerate into a medley of ad hochypotheses, it must become philosophical and must enter upon a thorough criticism of its ownfoundations."(Alfred North Whitehead http://www.alfred.north.whitehead.com/witwiz/witwiz4.htm[FR])

This discussion first introduces some basic concepts ofinformation systemstheory, thendescribes the mathematics and its ramifications. Then it analyses theprocess of perceptionleading through experience, ideas, communication and resulting in collective knowledge, whichthen feeds back upon our minds and influences the whole process. This shows that not only isour knowledge limited by empiricism but that accurate awarenessand knowledge is highlydependent on a good understanding and mastery of the mind. It is a highly complex and non-linear process by which we experience and know anything at all. In this sense the mind is thetrue foundation of empiricism, not a ferventbeliefin objects in spacetime. The mind is theinstrument ofexperience and knowledge, which we must understand and master if we are toexperience and know coherently, but themindcannot be understood within a purely empiricistparadigmbecause the mind precedes experience and therefore cannot be explained in terms ofthe objects of experience. We then explore some of the implications of having manyminds,integrated through culture and resonating together and some of the systemic phenomena thatarise from this. This sheds light on issues of enormous relevance to current global events andcrises. The work then explores some of the many parallels between information systemtheoryand theperennial philosophy, it then discusses the role of religion in this context. Then it

discusses some things that you can do to improve your own clarity and awareness. It thendiscusses what can be done to renovate and re-contextualise our empirical knowledge within thewider holistic context and generally re-establish ourselves as seekers of knowledge within thewider context. It then ends with a challenge to all people who seek deeper understanding and amore harmonious life to take a fresh look at themselves and theirworld and to sincerely tacklethe illusionsand irrationalities that go unquestioned in ourmindsand to strip away outmodedideas that impair ourawareness, understanding and judgement.

Essentially, it is proposed that science, which in the broadest sense, refers to any system ofknowledge which attempts to model objective reality is capable of far more than empiricalscience implies. Here it is proposed that a holistic science is possible, achievable and desirable(indeed vital for our survival). This work describes a path that leads toward a holistic science,

which is a profoundly skeptical science (devoid ofsacred cows) that comprehends the nature ofmind and uses it effectively, rather than anaive science that assumes that theexperiences andideas in the mindare representative ofobjective reality. It is not just an intellectual science, butalso one that requires deep introspection,self-awarenessandself-mastery. It is ascience thatcomprehends both thepersonal and themystic experiences of existence. The central principle ofmysticism[FR] is "know yourself". "The effort to understand yourself is Yoga" (Sri NisargadattaMaharaj[FR])

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

17/184

"The concepts ofscienceshow strong similarities to the concepts of the mystics... The philosophyofmysticaltraditions, theperennial philosophy, is the most consistent philosophical backgroundto modernscience." (Fritjof Capra[FR])

Mysticism is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, orconscious awarenessof, ultimate realitythrough direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such

experience is an important source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism)

Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to modelobjectivereality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledgebased on thescientific method, as well as to the organized body ofknowledge gained throughsuch research. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) [FR]

This discussion does not propose a fragmented and limited sciencebased upon 'mechanical'assumptions but a deep and holistic way of knowing that unifies all the fragmented disciplines ofempirical science and all the mystic traditions. An understanding that elucidates the deep natureof ourselves and civilisation, that reconnects religion with its mystic roots and science with itskeptical roots and that opens up a vast new field of technological innovations and solutions to

systemic problems that plague our lives and threaten our survival."General Systems theory should be an important means of instigating the transfer of principlesfrom one field to another (so that it would) no longer be necessary to duplicate the discovery ofthe same principles in different fields." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy[REF])

"There is this hope, I cannot promise you whether or when it will be realized - that themechanistic paradigm, with all its implications in science as well as in society and our ownprivate life, will be replaced by an organismic or systems paradigm that will offer new pathwaysfor our presently schizophrenic and self-destructive civilization." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy[REF])

The device that can take us to this holistic science isinformation system theory (IST), either asdiscussed here or in some form. The approach discussed here unifies all of the otherparadigms

within a single elegant and holisticparadigmthat derives from pure mathematics and theconcepts 'information' and 'system'. There are no introduced assumptions andbeliefs; itsfoundation is clear and simple, yet powerful enough to underlie all of our knowledge of theuniverse. But information system theory is only a device; it is not the holistic scienceitself oreven the foundation of the holistic science. Clear and open minds are the foundation and ISTgives us motivation and guidance in attaining such a thing and also a conceptual languagewithinwhich to express our deeper holistic understanding.

In particular IST identifies a general process for the clarification of assumptions andillusions,the overcoming of habitual and compulsive thought patterns, reconnecting with ourselves andourminds because we are the foundation of all culture and knowledge, then through ourselves toconnect with reality and then a renovation from the ground up of ourindividual and cultural

paradigms. Only then resulting in a holistic, re-aligned cultural domain, with clear and openminds connected to reality and not trapped within compelling and competing illusions. Theresulting holistic science can assist us in re-aligning with reality by motivating us and directingus to re-connect with ourselves, to come to know ourselves and through this to know reality.

The factual re-examination of some general principles brings to light some of their implicationsand reveals the fundamental limitations of the currently dominantparadigm. By looking throughthe cracks and exploring deeper, we discover profound parallels between cutting edge science,information theoretic metaphysics, existential philosophy and theperennial philosophy or mystic

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

18/184

wisdom. They are all talking about essentially the same thing but coming from different anglesand using different analogies. By identifying and distilling the common underlying structure ofthese analogies this work elucidates the general structure of a unifiedparadigm that seamlesslyencompasses them all. Each particularparadigm is a particularanalogical expression of thecommon underlyingparadigmand concepts from one are mirrored in the other. Given such aunified understanding we can translate from one to the other and each can learn a great deal fromthe others. The resulting understanding is that the assumptions of common sense realism and theunquestionedbeliefs that arise from it, such as empiricism and positivism, are fundamentallyflawed, limited and limiting. The actual range of possibilities inherent in existence is vastlygreater than that which the currentparadigmcan comprehend.

Ultimately all collective ideas are of the nature ofillusion to varying degrees, they are not theactual reality but just ideas about it, so if you are wondering if this discussion and the proposedpath to a holistic science is some kind ofillusion; you can be assured that it is to some degree.But it can show how it is an illusion and elucidate the exact relationship between illusion andreality. The mathematics and information systems theory are part of theillusion, everydayexperience of theworld is part of the illusion and also common sense, mystic wisdom, religiousdogma and scientific knowledge too; the whole of human civilization is a part of theillusion.Described here is anillusion that unifies all otherillusions; that elucidates the nature ofillusionand shows that all ideas, theories andbeliefsare all ultimately an illusion. The actual reality iswhat it is and we weave ideas around it to comprehend it, but in doing so, due to the nature ofmind, we can subtly and radically distort our experience and understanding of it. Thedeconstruction of the phenomenon ofillusionreveals that which isn't anillusion; it is the realitythat produces the stimuli that we interpret, experience and form ideas about, it is the reality thatthe mindcan only reflect and never hold or capture and it is ourselves as the bridge betweenreality and ideas.

For those who dwell in a world of cognitive impressions and ideas the actual reality seems to besomething remote and abstract. If IST was not itself an illusion, it could not be recognised orcomprehend by such people. But it is anillusion that dispels illusion. So it does not proclaim

itself to be any truth, the truth is ultimately beyond words and ideas, and only approachablethrough direct contact and clear open awareness. We are the weavers ofillusion and only byturning back on ourselves and mastering the mind can we disentangle ourselves from our web ofillusion and come to know and fully participate in reality.

"My friend, all theory is gray, and the Golden tree of life is green." (Goethe)

Introduction to Information Systems TheoryFirstly here is given a brief introduction to information systems theory (IST) [FR] to clarify thecontext of this analysis. The term "information systems theory" has been used in several relatedcontexts, usually involving computers that process information or organisations that useinformation in their management processes [FR]. For example a common definition of "aninformation system, ... is a technologically implemented medium for recording, storing, anddisseminating linguistic expressions, as well as for drawing conclusions from such expressions"(Langefors [REF]). Another definition is that "an information system consists of three components:human, task, application system" [REF]. These are very specialised applications of IST that aredefined within very particular contexts, however here we discussgeneralinformation systemstheory [FR] that is applicable to all systems and to all forms of information exchange andprocessing. Just as 'energy' is far more general than just electricity or fuel used for technologicalapplications (matter itself is energy), so too we will see that the concept of an "information

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

19/184

system" is vastly more general than just information exchange within applications of interest tohumans.

Some questions to keep in mind are: What is a useful way to think about the fundamentalmechanism of existence? And what about all these objects, people, places, events that weexperience in the world? And theuniverseitself? What about when something happens, what is

the cause? And what exactly is asystem?This discussion uses information system theory because it provides two universalmetaphors,'system' and 'information'. Any manifest form can be meaningfully thought of as a 'system',whether a particle, a person, ameme (idea), a process, a cultural phenomenon, a society, aplanet, a galaxy and up to the whole cosmos as a single closed system (the only truly 'closed'system). This is the reason for the usefulness of system theory [FR].

"In contrast to the mechanistic Cartesian view of the world, the world-view emerging frommodern physics can be characterized by words like organic, holistic, and ecological. It mightalso be called a systems view, in the sense of general systems theory. The universe is no longerseen as a machine, made up of a multitude of objects, but has to be pictured as one indivisibledynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can be understood only as patterns

of a cosmic process." (Fritjof Capra[FR])There are certain general properties of allsystems, regardless of their form, their behaviour orthe medium within which they exist and interact. A general property of all systems is that theyinteract via communication of some form [FR]. Not just social interactions between people ordocuments in a computer; for example, particle interactions when modelled by particle physicistsare thought of as communications that are mediated by virtual particles, or mechanical systemscommunicate by directing force through levers, pulleys, gears etc. Each systemhas anouterobservable form through which it is perceptible to other systems and aninnerobservationalprocess by which it perceives othersystems. Each system is embedded in an inter-connectingnetwork of communication paths and thus has a unique localised perspective. Signals flowbetween systems and through systems and this is conceived of as 'information'. Information is

defined as "discernible difference". It requires some medium that can support differentobservable states and an observer that can discern these states; it unites both outerand innerinthe one substance. When information is perceived it is as signals (outerobservable form) butwhen it flows within a system this flow is experienced as an innerobservational process.Furthermore, because of its generality information can manifest in any medium, it can betransformed from one medium to another and can flowthrough any network of systems. Theapproach of information theory is to model the flow of information through communicationchannels [FR].

Because of the generality of the concepts 'system' [FR] and 'information' [FR] and 'network' [FR], theapproach of information system theory [FR] is a form ofgeneral system theory GST [FR]. "Generalsystems theory in the narrower sense (G.S.T.), ... is trying to derive from a general definition of

'system' a complex of interacting components, concepts characteristic of organized wholes . . .and to apply them to concrete phenomena."(Ludwig von Bertalanffy[REF])

"While each scientific theory selects out and abstracts from the world's complexity a peculiar setof relations, philosophy cannot favor any particular region of human enterprise. Throughconceptual experimentation it must construct a consistency that can accommodate alldimensions of experience, whether they belong to physics, physiology, psychology, biology,ethics, etc.." (Alfred North Whitehead[FR])

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

20/184

However IST goes much further than traditional system theory, whilst GST is conceived of as ananalytical tool within an empiricist context, which defines what the concrete phenomena are,IST relies on no preconceived assumptions and it makes definite scientific realist or rationalistontological claims that go beyond the scope of empiricist science. IST is what arises when onetakes GST (also quantum physics) seriously, not just as a useful tool within a preconceivedcontext but as a genuine and accurate science and metaphysicsof the nature of theuniverse.When one takes systems as the reality and objectsas just the appearance of systems withinanother systemsperceptual process then one overcomes theattachments to sensorybeliefs andbases ones ontology on the systemic structure of reality and not on the subjective perceptualexperience of reality.

Each system perceives the incoming information and responds thus producing outgoinginformation. I.e. discernible difference is incident on a system and produces a discerniblydifferent change in the system's observable state, which is then perceived by other systems astheir incident discernible difference. This process occurs only in the present moment thus onlythe present moment can be said to 'exist'. In this context the past is memory and the future isexpectation. In general there is more to it involving concepts such as the quantum multiverse orthe permutation space within which all existential configurations exist as potentiality but are nottemporally ordered (not formed into sequences of successive moments), hence all past and futurestates exist as part of a probability distribution within an abstractspaceof potentiality and ourpath through that space creates our experience of past, present and future. So only the presentmoment exists as an actuality but the present moment contains all potentiality. But this is beyondthe scope of this discussion, as it requires going deep into the mathematical foundations of IST toelucidate the phenomena. See the website for more details on this.

As systems communicate and interact within the complex network of interaction paths there arefeedback loops and resonances. These result in some systems interacting strongly and othersweakly; i.e. high and low communication bandwidth. When systems strongly interact andintegrate together into a functional whole they are perceived as a higher-level system by othersystems and for most intents and purposes they 'create' a higher-level super-system; they become

sub-systems within the super-system. This phenomenon is referred to as a meta-system transition(MST) [FR]. In this way systems are "made of" sub-systems and they interact to 'make' super-systems. But all of this is a construct of appearances; when all the details are lost (entropy) thenthe ensemble of systems seems to be a single whole system. There is no ontological change fromensemble of systems to super-system, there is just degrees of integration leading to theperceptual appearance of a single whole super-system.MSTis discussed at length later on.

Due to the MST process and the constantly changing patterns of interactions, complex systemsappear and disappear, they integrate and disintegrate, they are born and they die. But allappearances and disappearances are just high-level perceptions of a constant and unbrokeninformation process. The outer form seems to appear, it seems to remain constant for a time andthen it seems to disappear. However the observable forms undergoing this process of change and

stability are just the outer appearance of an underlying information process; they rise and fall likewaves on the ocean. This process is not centred on any particular system; it flows throughout theentire cosmos and intricately integrates all things. The information process is a single unified'dance' of information. As the information flows we perceive forms that appear, interact anddisappear, and the coherence and integration of this activity rests upon the coherence andintegration of the underlying information process. This ultimately implies that what happensregarding one system is a function or a 'movement' of the whole cosmos. For example, considerFeynman Paths [FR].

8/8/2019 The Red Pill

21/184

"The probability amplitude for the particle to be at[position]xbis the sum over all pathsthrough spacetime originating at[position]xa at time ta"(http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~souther/compsim/lect8/tsld004.htm)

The important thing to note here is that a simple movement from point a to point b that can bearbitrarily close still involves the "sum overallpaths through spacetime"; even paths that snake

their way around, looping around the moon, going off to a distant galaxy, coming back to Earthand into your house then going back to wherever it is that we perceive a particle moving aminute distance from a to b. The entire cosmos takes part in every single interaction and theinformation processing isn't just confined to the trajectory between a and b but rather, theperceived localised event is an aspect of the cosmic information process; it is a gesture in thedance of information.

For anything to happen, the entire universe must coincide. It is wrong to believe that anythingin particular can cause an event. Every cause is universal. Your very body would not existwithout the entire universe contributing to its creation and survival... (Sri NisargadattaMaharaj, "I am That", p371 [FR])

It is the dynamic flow of information that binds the sub-systems together into a super-system

hence systems are composed of a set of sub-systems and an inter-connective information process.Now let us delve down the complexity hierarchy through the sub-systems then through their sub-systems and so on. Examine a system, step into itsinner space and see that it consists of sub-